You see the word "genocide" tossed around a lot these days. To keep things in context, here is how the United Nations defines genocide:
Quote:
The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime.
Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has been ratified by 153 States (as of April 2022). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. This means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.
The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.
Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
|
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Opinions obviously vary, and will be debated based upon one's views, preferences, and even ethnicity. Often the word appears to be used to advance a cause or enforce an opinion based upon emotion.
There will be disagreement, but it's not clear to me that Israel is guilty of genocide on the basis of intent as described in the above definition:
Quote:
|
To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
|
From the context of genocide, 34,000 deaths in Gaza out of a population of 5 million Palestinians does not appear to be an act intended to destroy the Palestinian people. It is tragic regardless, and unnecessary, IMHO.
The IDF's actions, IMHO, have been an overzealous, ham-fisted military attempt to eliminate Hamas without enough regard for civilian lives, their homes and infrastructure that have been destroyed. The resultant famine and other hardships put on the people in the affected regions of Gaza is horrible and unacceptable, and needs to be resolved immediately. Over and above that, there doesn't seem to be a plan to rebuild the destroyed areas of Gaza, or a path to a 2-state solution that needs to be an end goal.
Nobody can bring back the 34,000 lives lost to the IDF's military actions (or the 1139 lives lost in the brutal Oct. 7 attacks on Israel), nor will the survivors of any of these actions ever be able to live normal lives again. This is a tragedy on so many levels.
Regarding the university protests, their emotions are clear and understandable, but IMHO we have to draw the line at violence and hate propaganda. The intent of the popular slogan
"From the river to the sea" comes from a terrorist organization's desire for the genocide of the Israeli people, even though there have been attempts to whitewash the slogan by indicating it has some other, less nefarious, meaning. Sometimes, it's not clear whether some of the participants are all that knowledgeable about the situation, and some even seem to care more about creating conflict than achieving any goals related to the cause.
Also, related to the protests, I find it disappointing that there has been no call from these groups for release of the remaining Israeli hostages (if any of them are still alive). From a humanitarian point of view, these people have suffered every bit as much as the citizens of Gaza, and if people really want peace, the release of the hostages should be one of the goals of the protesters.
I also feel sorry for the remaining students of these universities who simply paid for the chance to receive an education, and have worked hard all year to pass their courses, only to have the end of the semester blown up by protests about a war that's happening on the other side of the globe.
Anyhow, this has strayed somewhat from Canadian politics, but I think it's safe to say that we all have been affected by the Oct. 7 attacks and the resultant Israel-Hamas war to some degree. It has been an emotional time for many, and these actions have clearly put the world, that has already been shaken by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in a less-stable state than it has been for many decades. Hopefully we can all find peace again at some point in the future.
Prev
Linear Mode
